bbrz

There's definitely a problem with the brakes since e.g. on the F/A-18 and the F-16 is that there's no difference in stopping distance with antiskid on and off, which doesn't make sense. Furthermore stopping performance is (at least) on both aircraft considerable longer than the flight manual values. But since ED has tagged these reported bugs as 'correct as is' I've given up on providing additional info.

Ok, I give up. It's apparently useless trying to explain anything to you. Concerning climb. I wrote exactly the opposite!!! One more time: If there's a 100kts head or tailwind doesn't matter concerning climb performance. Climb rate will be the same at 200kts groundspeed and at 400kts groundspeed. Isn't it strange that most aircraft in DCS and in all other flightsims are fundamentally wrong in your opinion. For the last time, your video shows that wind affects the airplane only in relationship to the ground, but I know, that's not what you want to read. Bye.

I don't know how often we have to repeat this. Steady wind only affects ground speed and ground track, both have nothing to do with aircraft performance. The aicraft is climbing at a fixed IAS. If the optimum climb speed is e.g. 300kias the aicraft will climb best at this speed. If there's a 100kts head or tailwind doesn't matter concerning climb performance. Climb rate will be the same at 200kts groundspeed and at 400kts groundspeed. Again, once ground comes into play, like during landing, things will change. If there's an obstacle in your way after takeoff at a fixed distance, the aircraft will be lower over the obstacle in a tailwind condition than in a headwind condition. During landing wind only has an impact on the aircraft because you need to correct your heading (or keep the downwind wing low and apply opposite rudder) to maintain the runway heading. But performance doesn't change. It makes no difference on which heading you are flying. For a goldfish isn't doesn't matter and it makes no difference if he swimming in his goldfishbowl while it sits steady on a desk or if it's travelling in a car at 100mph. As cofcorpse mentioned, you are talking about navigation which means the aircraft id moving relative to the ground. But it's about aerodynamics which don't affect performance. If you still don't believe/understand it and you don't believe real world pilots, there are lots of documents in the net for you to read. One more item that might help in understanding this issue. If an airliner takes off in a 40kts crosswind, climbs with V2 +10kts and turns 90deg into the 40kts taiilwind, it would stall according to your theory....but apparently this doesn't happen IRL.

You are comparing apples and oranges. We are talking about steady wind which has zero, no, nil effect on an aircraft in flight. Your example shows the transition from air to ground and that's the only point (and vice versa of course) where wind does have an effect.

Suggest to take a look at the winter update thread when you can roughly expect an update.

I assume that they would have expected that their Yak would have the basics right, like a realistic engine behavior and engine indictions, correct RPM/MP relationship etc.

Why not for the F-16?

Without nav lights you aren't allowed to fly between sunset and sunrise anyway. If there are no nav lights you don't need any other lights at all.

+1

That's a strange question. You correctly mentioned that the approach and touchdown speed varies with weight. Without knowing what your Su-33 weighs in your case, how should anyone know if 250 km/h is too fast?

Maybe ED has 'corrected' the rpm problem, but by doing this they apparently made the problem even worse. It's very disappointing that the F-16 suffers from the same problem. :(

As mentioned a few times already, the rpm difference isn't noticeable at high speed where the engine is apparently operating at or close to max rpm. Suggest to run the test again at 250kias.

No. That's a common misconception. (Steady) wind has absolutely zero effect on an airplane in flight except for ground speed and track over ground. Concerning kites; I kite is connected to a fixed point on the ground, so it's not even remotely comparable to an aircraft in any case. Furthermore lift is usually created above, not under the wings.

The sad thing is that with all the new things ED is planning for 2020, I'm afraid that correcting bugs on old modules will now take even longer. Unfortunately re-installing DCS doesn't seem very likely for me in the foreseeable future :( :(

Seriously: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=214854&highlight=tailwind

As in case of e.g. the F-5 where IAS/TAS varies with head/tailwind ;)

Yes

Don't have DCS presently installed, but it's easy to find out if the F-5 has the correct basic drag. With both engines shut down and at 13300lbs, flaps up and at 250kias, the ROD should be ~3750ft/min, with pylons and/or wingtip missiles or without. With both engines at idle, DI 0 and at 270kts the ROD should be approximately the same as above but since too high basic drag can be conceiled by increased idle thrust, the idle descent result is naturally less meaningful.

Great that it works for you :) But I'm really surprised to read about the strange difficulties some people are apparently having with the F-5.

Looks like you are flying in game mode since I haven't experienced a single issue you posted, except the first point which is quite normal for most jets. Since you didn't state what speeds you are talking about and if you were in level flight or descending, it's impossible to find out if it's unrealistic.

Don't know what makes you think flaps position and/or trim would will alter the CG, but it definitely doesn't.

Instead if writing this looong rant and insulting Yak customers, you could have taken a closer look at the Yak forum and you would have noticed this thread: https://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?t=255904

Flyable, but not clickable.

I don't know why you provided these links since they aren't even remotely similar to the F-5 or any other fighter. There are a few important reasons why you don't keep the nose up with these planes. 1. You need to re-configure the flaps and/or spoilers and stab trim which requires quite a bit of time. 2. The engines are not mounted at or almost at the fuselage centerline and you definitely don't want to risk an uneven spool up, or even worse an engine failure, while the nosewheel is in the air. 3. In none of these aircraft aerobraking is the normal landing or touch and go procedure.

Not significantly since the difference in pitch attitude during aerobraking and taking off with the hiked nosegear is rather small. Furthermore the stabilators are almost parallel to the runway surface during aerobraking.